Iran Rebuilds Its Proxy Network While Washington Negotiates

Introduction: fragile diplomacy against relentless realpolitik

A deal under negotiation, a threat that persists

While the United States and Iran pursue discreet negotiations around a memorandum of understanding signed in mid-June 2026, several regional analysts warn that Tehran is simultaneously continuing to rebuild and expand its network of proxy militias across the Middle East, according to information reported by Chosun Biz and the Times of Israel.

This dual Iranian approach, negotiating on one hand while consolidating its indirect military projection capabilities on the other, illustrates a realpolitik strategy that Tehran has perfected over decades in its confrontation with the West and Israel.

Why this double game worries Western allies

For Israel in particular, this continued expansion of the Iranian proxy network, despite ongoing diplomatic talks, confirms fears that any deal negotiated with Washington serves only to buy time rather than genuinely dismantle the regional infrastructure of the axis of resistance led by Tehran.

I remain deeply skeptical of this Iranian diplomacy that negotiates with one hand while rearming its proxies with the other, a strategic duplicity the West has already seen play out repeatedly in its dealings with the mullahs' regime.

The content of the memorandum of understanding negotiated in Washington

A sixty-day window for a lasting agreement

According to documents obtained by CNN, the memorandum of understanding signed in mid-June 2026 between the United States and Iran establishes a negotiating window of sixty days to reach a more detailed and lasting agreement on Iran's nuclear program and Tehran's regional activities. This document includes fourteen points covering various aspects of the bilateral relationship.

This tight timeframe reflects the urgency the Trump administration perceives in stabilizing the regional situation after several months of direct military tensions between Israel and Iran, while maintaining maximum pressure on Tehran to secure substantial concessions on its nuclear program.

The gray areas of the negotiated text

Several observers note that the memorandum's text remains deliberately vague on the specific issue of Iran's regional proxy network, focusing mainly on the nuclear aspects of the file, a gap Israeli officials consider particularly worrying given the historical experience with Tehran.

This lack of clarity on the proxy issue strikes me as a major flaw in this deal under negotiation, since it leaves Iran considerable room to keep projecting its destabilizing influence throughout the region without technically violating the terms of the agreement.

The current state of the militia network backed by Tehran

Hezbollah, a weakened but still active pillar

Lebanese Hezbollah, long considered the spearhead of the Iranian proxy network, suffered significant losses during the conflict with Israel that intensified since October 2023, but nonetheless retains substantial military capabilities and continues to receive Iranian financial and logistical support, despite increased supply difficulties since the fall of the Assad regime in Syria.

This resilience of Hezbollah, even weakened, demonstrates Tehran's ability to maintain its regional influence networks despite significant military setbacks, an important lesson for anyone hoping for a swift and complete dismantling of the Iranian axis of resistance.

The Houthis, the most active link in the Iranian axis

The Houthis in Yemen remain the most active and disruptive link in the Iranian proxy network at present, having resumed their attacks on commercial and military shipping in the Red Sea since late March 2026, after a pause following the Gaza ceasefire of October 2025. This resumption of hostilities confirms the continuity of Iranian support for this militia despite the evolving diplomatic context.

I believe the persistence of Houthi attacks, despite all the ongoing diplomatic negotiations, is the most tangible proof that Iran has no intention whatsoever of giving up its proxy network as a bargaining chip in talks with Washington.

Israel's position in the face of this American diplomacy

Seeking guarantees rather than total victory

According to an analysis published by the Times of Israel, the Israeli government has understood that the Trump administration favors a negotiated diplomatic resolution over a total military victory against Iran, forcing Jerusalem to redirect its strategy toward securing concrete security guarantees rather than the complete elimination of the Iranian threat.

This Israeli strategic shift reflects a realistic reading of Washington's priorities, which above all seeks to avoid a prolonged military entanglement in the Middle East that could divert American strategic resources and attention from other geopolitical priorities, notably the confrontation with China.

Jerusalem's minimum demands in the negotiations

Israeli officials insist on several non-negotiable guarantees, including a robust verification mechanism for Iran's nuclear program and binding provisions limiting the rearmament of Hezbollah and other proxy militias, conditions that, if granted, could constitute a substantial diplomatic victory despite the absence of a complete military dismantling.

I think Israel is right to demand these concrete guarantees rather than settling for vague diplomatic promises, since recent history amply shows that Tehran only honors its commitments under constant and verifiable pressure.

The repercussions for long-term regional stability

A Middle East still at the mercy of the Iranian axis

As long as the Iranian proxy network retains significant operational capacity, the regional stability of the Middle East remains structurally fragile, regardless of any formal diplomatic agreement on Iran's nuclear program. This reality forces regional partners of the United States, notably Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, to maintain constant vigilance against Tehran's persistent destabilizing capabilities.

This structural fragility highlights the limits of a diplomatic approach focused exclusively on the nuclear question, without binding and verifiable engagement with the proxy dimension of the regional Iranian threat, a strategic blind spot several Western analysts consider worrying.

The role of Russia and China in this regional equation

The persistence of the Iranian proxy network indirectly benefits the strategic interests of Russia and China, which benefit from continued regional instability in the Middle East diverting Western attention and resources from their own priority strategic theaters, Ukraine for Moscow and the Indo-Pacific for Beijing respectively.

I see in this convergence of interests between Tehran, Moscow, and Beijing further confirmation of a coordinated, even if informal, authoritarian axis that systematically exploits every regional instability to weaken the West's overall strategic capacity.

The role of Iraqi proxies in the regional equation

Shiite militias still armed despite the pressure

The Iraqi Shiite militias aligned with Tehran, grouped notably within the Popular Mobilization Forces, continue to possess substantial arsenals despite American diplomatic pressure on the Baghdad government to limit their political and military influence in the country.

These groups have occasionally launched attacks against American installations in Iraq and Syria in recent months, a reminder that the Iranian proxy network retains a regional nuisance capacity that extends far beyond the Lebanese or Yemeni files alone.

A precarious balance for the Iraqi government

The Iraqi government finds itself caught between American demands to disarm the militias and its own political dependence on these same armed groups, illustrating the enduring complexity of dismantling Iranian influence in a country where Tehran has invested decades in building political and religious influence.

This situation shows just how deeply the Iranian proxy network has become institutionalized beyond simple external armed groups, integrating deeply into the national political structures of several countries in the region.

I believe the Iraqi case perfectly illustrates the limits of any Western strategy that focuses solely on Iran's nuclear program without tackling this deeply entrenched architecture of political influence in several states of the region.

Lessons drawn from previous agreements with Tehran

The still-vivid memory of the 2015 nuclear deal

Many Western and Israeli analysts point out that the 2015 nuclear deal, signed under the Obama administration, did not prevent Tehran from continuing to fund and arm its regional proxies throughout its implementation, a historical experience that today fuels deep skepticism toward any new negotiation limited to the nuclear track alone.

This historical precedent largely explains why Israel now insists that any new agreement include explicit provisions on dismantling the proxy network, rather than repeating what is seen as the mistake of the previous deal.

A structural mistrust weighing on current negotiations

This historical mistrust largely shapes the Israeli approach and that of several Western allies toward the current negotiations, even as the Trump administration claims to have learned from past mistakes by incorporating stricter verification mechanisms into the framework currently being negotiated with Tehran.

It remains to be seen whether these strengthened mechanisms will be enough to prevent a repeat of the 2015 scenario, when Tehran was able to exploit ambiguities in the text to continue its destabilizing regional activities without formally, technically violating the signed agreement.

I remain marked by this historical failure of 2015, and I believe the West would be wrong to repeat the same mistake by focusing exclusively on the nuclear issue without demanding firm, verifiable guarantees on the actual dismantling of the proxy network.

The role of Qatar and Oman as discreet mediators

Essential parallel diplomatic channels

Qatar and Oman continue to play a discreet but essential mediating role between Washington and Tehran, facilitating indirect communication channels that keep dialogue alive even when direct military tensions between Israel and Iran complicate formal negotiations.

This behind-the-scenes diplomacy, carried out by Gulf states eager to preserve their own regional stability, illustrates the complexity of a file that involves far more than just the actors directly in conflict.

I recognize the practical usefulness of these regional mediators, but I remain convinced that Western vigilance must stay fully intact, no matter how many additional diplomatic channels are mobilized to appease Tehran.

Conclusion: a Western vigilance that cannot let up

A necessary but insufficient agreement on its own

While a formal diplomatic agreement between Washington and Tehran represents a preferable step over uncontrolled military escalation, it cannot alone guarantee regional stability as long as the Iranian proxy network retains its operational capacity intact across Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, and Syria.

The West and its regional partners will need to maintain constant vigilance and robust verification mechanisms to ensure that any diplomatic concession granted to Tehran comes with verifiable constraints on its indirect military projection capabilities across the region.

The ultimate test of the next sixty days

The coming weeks of negotiation will determine whether this diplomatic approach can truly produce lasting results, or whether it represents merely another tactical pause in Tehran's long-term strategy of maintaining its regional influence through its proxies, regardless of formal agreements signed with Washington.

I conclude with the conviction that the only viable diplomacy toward Tehran is one that combines verifiable firmness with acknowledged distrust, because the history of the Iranian regime leaves no room for Western diplomatic naivety.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I sign my pieces under the name Maxime Marquette, columnist-analyst for mad-m.ca. I hold a pro-Western editorial line, firmly pro-Ukrainian, and critical of the authoritarian regimes that are Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. I consider Iran a major threat to regional stability and to Israel, a position that guides my analysis while remaining strictly grounded in verifiable facts.

My method is to systematically cross-reference several reputable journalistic sources before stating any fact, always separating my personal opinions, flagged in italics, from sourced factual data.

What I don't know

I do not know whether the negotiations between Washington and Tehran will result in a lasting agreement within the planned sixty-day timeframe, nor what the real scale of Iranian concessions on its regional proxy network will be. I do not invent any testimony, any anonymous source, any scene I did not have direct access to through public and verifiable documents.

Sources

Primary sources

Iran's proxy network expected to expand despite ongoing US talks — Chosun Biz, June 29, 2026

Trump's emerging Iran deal forces Israel to seek guarantees, not victory — Times of Israel, June 29, 2026

Secondary sources

Text of the US-Iran memorandum of understanding revealed — CNN, June 17, 2026

2026 Houthi strikes on Israel — updated July 2026

Red Sea, Bab el-Mandeb Strait — Houthi attacks advisory — US Maritime Administration, 2026

Iran's proxy strategy after the ceasefire: an assessment — Foreign Policy, July 2026